this country will recover when most of the baby boomers are dead

[boutons_deux]

aka, cop out

then randomly different could just a well mean more ty. There's no guarantee that the "rest of us" would do any better, or any ANY impact at all

What specifically would "the rest of us" simply luck out and do less tily compared to the ty BBs?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

aka, cop out

then randomly different could just a well mean more ty. There's no guarantee that the "rest of us" would do any better, or any ANY impact at all

What specifically would "the rest of us" simply luck out and do less tily compared to the ty BBs?

Thats not a copout. you need to learn what the meaning of a copout is. I directly addressed your question.

The performance of our leadership over the past 30 years has been as bad or worse than the performance during the period of 1900 to 1930. The 1990s reek of the 1920s.

Whats funny is that you more than likely fully supported the DNC's notion of change in the 2008 election and here and now you reject the same idea but under a different paradigm.

You think that the DNC who you constantly fellate like a good minion is somehow different than their counterpart. What i see is a consistent policy as a particular generation entered the power structure over the same period.

You see it across industries and government.

Looking over the course of history, its people aged 40 to 60 that dominate the leadership positions. The baby boomers are a very distinct generation and over the last 30 years, they fit that description.

I am not saying that we should target them for excision but what i am saying is that as the oldest of that generation enter their 70s and leave the power structure that things are going to get better.

the incoming generation are noted for their altruism and more importantly a disillusionment with the entire political process and party identification. They were the ones that flocked to the idea of change precisely because of it.

The generation of failure is leaving the power structure and that is a good thing.

[boutons_deux]

"change in the 2008 election"

.. for me it was just ANYTHING BUT MORE CRIMINAL, IGNORANT, BAD-FAITH DESTRUCTIVE REPUGS

I never believed a guy at the top of his class at Harvard ing Law and editor of the HLS paper was a radical, a socialist, Muslim terrorist. All he was for me was not a Repug.

"generation of failure is leaving the power structure and that is a good thing."

The power structure, Repug or Dem, is nothing but a proxy for the real (financial) power UCA and capitalists. Without the UCA/financial funds and support, the majority of candidates are dead in the water. UCA/financial don't have to own everybody in Congress and the Exec, just enough to kill legislation and regulations, just enough majority to pass what they want. The Power of No gives extraordinary power to minorities, like one senator secretly putting a hold on any item, or 20 tea bagger assholes holding all the power in the House to keep the Repugs from dreaded "compromise".

The post-Boomer generation in power will be just as corrupt and paralyzed as the Boomers because that what the UCA/capitalists pay for.

[EVAY]

Thats not a copout. you need to learn what the meaning of a copout is. I directly addressed your question.

The performance of our leadership over the past 30 years has been as bad or worse than the performance during the period of 1900 to 1930. The 1990s reek of the 1920s.

Whats funny is that you more than likely fully supported the DNC's notion of change in the 2008 election and here and now you reject the same idea but under a different paradigm.

You think that the DNC who you constantly fellate like a good minion is somehow different than their counterpart. What i see is a consistent policy as a particular generation entered the power structure over the same period.

You see it across industries and government.

Looking over the course of history, its people aged 40 to 60 that dominate the leadership positions. The baby boomers are a very distinct generation and over the last 30 years, they fit that description.

I am not saying that we should target them for excision but what i am saying is that as the oldest of that generation enter their 70s and leave the power structure that things are going to get better.

the incoming generation are noted for their altruism and more importantly a disillusionment with the entire political process and party identification. They were the ones that flocked to the idea of change precisely because of it.

The generation of failure is leaving the power structure and that is a good thing.

Fuzzy, Reading this last post of yours and reading the OP leave one with dramatically different interpretations of your position. The thread le references the death of baby boomers as the solution to the nation's ills.

After several pages of challenges, your position has changed to say that this BB generation is similar to that of the 1900-1930's, and that as soon as they retire from positions of power and influence, things will improve in the nation. That is wholly different than the earlier suggestion that it is the requirement that the young pay all the SS and medicare bills for a generation of greedy dead-beats that has us in a financial crisis now.

So, either you want us all dead ( manifestly implied in your OP), at which point Darrin's point about having us wear a star on our clothes makes some sense, or you just want us no longer making policy decisions for the nation in favor of a generation that you are convinced is already showing itself to be superior to the BB generation. I must also point out, as have others, that we raised your generation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"change in the 2008 election"

.. for me it was just ANYTHING BUT MORE CRIMINAL, IGNORANT, BAD-FAITH DESTRUCTIVE REPUGS

I never believed a guy at the top of his class at Harvard ing Law and editor of the HLS paper was a radical, a socialist, Muslim terrorist. All he was for me was not a Repug.

"generation of failure is leaving the power structure and that is a good thing."

The power structure, Repug or Dem, is nothing but a proxy for the real (financial) power UCA and capitalists. Without the UCA/financial funds and support, the majority of candidates are dead in the water. UCA/financial don't have to own everybody in Congress and the Exec, just enough to kill legislation and regulations, just enough majority to pass what they want. The Power of No gives extraordinary power to minorities, like one senator secretly putting a hold on any item, or 20 tea bagger assholes holding all the power in the House to keep the Repugs from dreaded "compromise".

The post-Boomer generation in power will be just as corrupt and paralyzed as the Boomers because that what the UCA/capitalists pay for.

I get so tired of listening to your spouting of DNC rhetoric. You are such a mindless partisan minion.

There is one consistent in the leadership of all those groups you mentioned. Also, as I have mentioned there is one consistent demographic across all of them.

[boutons_deux]

so you won't answer why, how the BBs' children will "CHANGE" or maybe even, gasp!, fixt the govt and society so totally dominated by the UCA and capitalists. OK, off, tired one.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, Reading this last post of yours and reading the OP leave one with dramatically different interpretations of your position. The thread le references the death of baby boomers as the solution to the nation's ills.

I didnt write the OP. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. The notion that the baby boomers disproportionately sap our nations resources and that they use their majority and seniority to consolidate power resulting in the worst policy decisions within the last 100 years are not mutually exclusive.

After several pages of challenges, your position has changed to say that this BB generation is similar to that of the 1900-1930's, and that as soon as they retire from positions of power and influence, things will improve in the nation. That is wholly different than the earlier suggestion that it is the requirement that the young pay all the SS and medicare bills for a generation of greedy dead-beats that has us in a financial crisis now.

Again, i did not write the OP. The arguments that you think i changed to were actually developed in a response to a litany of articles all by baby boomers who have taken everything from social awkwardness manifesting in a preference to texting to trends like piercing to label subsequent generations as unfit and undesirable.

My point in response to that has been to evaluate the actual policy and legacy of the generation from which all of these criticisms have derived. The proof in the pudding so to speak.

What do you think of the direction of this country since the 1980s?

That that policy is going to further serve to those that come behind in clearly outlined economic manner only serves to reinforce that point.

So, either you want us all dead ( manifestly implied in your OP), at which point Darrin's point about having us wear a star on our clothes makes some sense, or you just want us no longer making policy decisions for the nation in favor of a generation that you are convinced is already showing itself to be superior to the BB generation. I must also point out, as have others, that we raised your generation.

While I will certainly agree with the notion that once the baby boom generation has died off that the country will be in better shape, I do not agree that killing millions of people is the solution.

It is not surprising to me that one of your generation would find the logical conclusion of seeing a better end to be to force the realization of said end no matter the cost. Its the same trian of thought that has led our culture into the 'I will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today' mentality that we have todya.

Quite frankly, quit being a . No one is saying that you need to die. If someone were to start advocating killing off any demographic i would put my life on the line to stop it. I respect your life as an individual. At the same time that does not mitigate the fact that the collective from whence you came has and will continue to be a drag on this country.

Furthermore, you guys keep on bringing up the entire parenting issue. I have heard blame trying to be passed onto the WW2 generation for raising you as well as citing you 'raising us.' Take responsibility for your own ing actions. The WW2 generation did not cause that anymore than you cause those who follow you into action.

On a final note, want to point out something that i find quite humorous. To all of you that complain that you were fired and replaced by a younger person, I can only laugh. You could take less money but you are not willing to do that. Merit should not have to be based on seniority. Yet, a system of such expectations personified by labor action from groups once again headed by baby boomers over the last 30 years has formalized such expectations. You are only a victim of your own ins utions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so you won't answer why, how the BBs' children will "CHANGE" or maybe even, gasp!, fixt the govt and society so totally dominated by the UCA and capitalists. OK, off, tired one.

Let me give you an evidence of social change as subsequent generations enter the power structure has been the evolution of drug laws. Now that you see weakening of drug laws and attempts at legalization. The current establishment is trying to cling to it but as they die off things will change.

Quite frankly, if you cannot understand how the overturn of 1/3 of the population will result in dramatic social change then you're an idiot. Considering you supposed ideology, that you use fear of the unknown to attempt to justify the status quo only serves to reinforce the notion that you are just a mindlessly partisan minion.

Have fun continuing to support your one-half of failure.

[DarrinS]

Baby boomers: Apple, Microsoft, Oracle

GenX: Google

GenY: Facebook

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Baby boomers: Apple, Microsoft, Oracle

GenX: Google

GenY: Facebook

Are you really trying to espouse Apple and Microsoft as examples of good business practices?

Now they may very well have done it because of market insecurity but IBM an ins ution that I find superior to all of them and most definitely did not come from baby boomers, licensed out the chip dev, OS and output of PC's to intel, MS and epson respectively. That literally created a diverse compe ive industry.

The baby boomers in the form of MS took that and tried to monopolize it all for themselves which is yet again another realization of the ethic they live by. MS after all that was forced to give out source code which spurred industry through no intent of their own.

[boutons_deux]

"current establishment is trying to cling to it"

bull . Congressmen won't touch medicial marijuana, never mind legalization. That's the centuries old Puritanism and intimidation by the minority of "Christian" Taleban. And the PIC is also in there paying against legalization since so many 10s of 1000s in the mj business get arrested (police quota) and locked up($20K+ month). Do you really think 25 - 30 year old cops of today are gonna change that? Are post-Boomer Congressmen, ENOUGH of them, will legalize medical or all mj?

"1/3 of the population will result in dramatic social change then you're an idiot"

It has to be enough post-Boomers a) give a about politics to and b) vote in the progressive direction AND get enough legislators elected. iow, a LONG WAY from 1/3 total number will actually vote at all and vote to overturn BB laws.

UCA + capitalists run this country now. Bankers have since the Fed was created. UCA ascendancy in the past 35 years is due to VRWC objectives to get in their with the banker to vampire-squid suck the wealth of the country. Post-Boomers ain't gonna change that. In fact, their best and brightest are getting vacuumed up the the financial sector to that criminal enterprise going.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"current establishment is trying to cling to it"

bull . Congressmen won't touch medicial marijuana, never mind legalization. That's the centuries old Puritanism and intimidation by the minority of "Christian" Taleban. And the PIC is also in there paying against legalization since so many 10s of 1000s in the mj business get arrested (police quota) and locked up($20K+ month). Do you really think 25 - 30 year old cops of today are gonna change that? Are post-Boomer Congressmen, ENOUGH of them, will legalize medical or all mj?

Social change is on all levels but more to the point what have i been saying of the composition of the congresspeople that you keep saying won't touch it?

"1/3 of the population will result in dramatic social change then you're an idiot"

It has to be enough post-Boomers a) give a about politics to and b) vote in the progressive direction AND get enough legislators elected. iow, a LONG WAY from 1/3 total number will actually vote at all and vote to overturn BB laws.

UCA + capitalists run this country now. Bankers have since the Fed was created. UCA ascendancy in the past 35 years is due to VRWC objectives to get in their with the banker to vampire-squid suck the wealth of the country. Post-Boomers ain't gonna change that. In fact, their best and brightest are getting vacuumed up the the financial sector to that criminal enterprise going.

You really have no conception of anything other than dualism in a political framework. Thats whats great about those that are going to have to clean up your mess. they are not limited to such paradigms.

you also seem to mistake lack of party identification with disinterest in policy.

You are well programmed.

[Winehole23]

Renewal!

[ElNono]

I agree we need more Albert Einsteins rather than marketing and businessmen people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison.

[Winehole23]

[Winehole23]

I doubt things will magically get better when more boomers kick off.

[Winehole23]

I also tend to doubt one's iden y is significantly derived from his birthdate. This particular feature of FL's jeremiad against boomers strikes me as being akin to astrology in it's vaporous relationship to the subject matter.

[Winehole23]

Sounds exactly like the 2nd and 3rd rate sociology and anthropology that were au courant 10 and 15 years ago. The glib determinism of generation sounds little better now then it does then.

(Or if it does, we all got stupider in the meantime...)

[Winehole23]

Sociology and anthropology are no more sciences than economics and psychology in my conceited opinion.

[ElNono]

I also tend to doubt one's iden y is significantly derived from his birthdate.

True, you're always an asshole...

[DarrinS]

I also tend to doubt one's iden y is significantly derived from his birthdate. This particular feature of FL's jeremiad against boomers strikes me as being akin to astrology in it's vaporous relationship to the subject matter.

WH, you may be shocked by this, but I agree w you 100%.

Lumping an entire generation of people together and labeling them a cancer on our society is the height of ignorance. There are too many examples of people who are just the opposite. By the way, Reagan and Bush Sr. Are not BB and Clinton and GWB are on the fringe of not being BB.

[ElNono]

I just don't think it's a generational thing... so in that point I agree with WH and DS... I frankly have a hard time thinking that's what's coming from the political arena is much different than the current version...

[Winehole23]

True, you're always an asshole...

Reliability should count for something, but it's a tough crowd.

[Winehole23]

WH, you may be shocked by this, but I agree w you 100%.

Lumping an entire generation of people together and labeling them a cancer on our society is the height of ignorance.

Everybody's got an asshole and a birthday.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also tend to doubt one's iden y is significantly derived from his birthdate. This particular feature of FL's jeremiad against boomers strikes me as being akin to astrology in it's vaporous relationship to the subject matter.

Do you doubt that one's iden ies were not at least in part derived by the experiences that they grew up in. If two people experience many of the same things growing up in the same environment would it not make sense that they share similar interests. Even in things as basic as curiosity about the kennedy assassination or Ed Sullivan?